DHS: NYC has "No Icons, No Monuments Worth Protecting"

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Just edit your previous post... don't quote yourself. You don't want to be another MrFun, do you?

[Drake Tungsten]

Don't play dumb...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Damn, its like that excellent adventure I just did... when you mentioned his name, he pops out!

[MrFun]

I'm just trying to remember the last time I quoted my own post.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well you could do it again for old time's sake

[Drake Tungsten]

It's gotta be a non sequitur about the Civil War and/or racism to seem authentic, though.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well you could do it again for old time's sake

Maybe the last time I quoted myself was six months ago, or something like that.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Remind me again why governmental agencies and new governmental programs are so effectively managed and good for us?

[Elok]

Originally posted by alva
Hmm, if I wanted to hurt or humiliate the US in the eyes of the world, that would be my number one target.
Can you imagine the tv images you could get from that, for years to come!

Yes, but the SoL is specifically a symbol of freedom, and pretty much unblemished as a symbol, AFAIK. It was the first thing millions of immigrants saw, and about as representative of imperialism as Mickey Mouse. Destroying it would enrage the U.S., sure, but it would also look cartoonishly evil--supersized vandalism--and nothing more. I don't see how it would depress the economy, or make people feel totally vulnerable, the way 9/11 did. A total waste of supplies, time and manpower.

Terrorists are heartless SOBs, but there's some kind of twisted reasoning process behind their decisions. People in some Arab countries were cheering when they heard about 9/11, but not because of symbolic blows. Rather, it really hurt us physically.
The Pentagon is U.S. military HQ, the WTC was full of people and an obvious symbol of our economic power, and as for the WH or Congress...do I need to explain those? The Empire State Building, the NYSE, those would be worth attacking (I'll admit the ESB is a "monument" to some people; I just don't see anything terribly special about it myself, it's just a big building that used to be important). Alternatively, an airport or a major bridge.

BTW, according to the Washington Post, most of NYC's monuments were exempted from the calculations due to asinine hair-splitting. The SoL is Federal, not State, property, and others were classified as "tall buildings" or "infrastructure," or some crap like that, on the DHS forms. By their classification schemes, which evidently didn't allow for overlap, there ARE no monuments or icons in NY. Yellowstone, however, would presumptively count.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by MrFun
All you nutjobs are wrong . . . . . .





the Statue of Liberty is physically within the confines of New York but legally, it is part of Iowa.

What?

[GePap]

Terrorism is about creating insecurity - it is a morale weapon, designed to make one side think that whatever struggle is being fought is not worh the possible cost, and since the terrorist are invariably weak, the only great threat they can promise is totally random violence, meaning that unlike in a war, were people back home can seperate themselves from the battlefield (like your average American is form Iraq or Afghanistan), in this "war" anyone anywhere is a potential target.

IN that regard, the best possible terrorist attack would be a series of bombings of random targets like Walmarts, or small town shops, or some High School football game. Such attacks would cause huge amounts of paranoia within the country, since no one ever expecvts those places to be targets.

The reason thought these attacks atren't going to happen are several:

1. These sorts of targest are in areas were outsiders stand out like martians. It would be difficult for a terrorist to have enough time out of the limelight to carry out the attack.

2. These sorts of targets would require terrorist to have some knowledge of what makes Americans tick, the kind of knowledge they don;t have. Some university grad from Riyahd is going to know about the big cities, not nowhere'sville, Kansas. And "Friday Night Lights" is not the kind of movie they probably watch.

So in the mind of the terrorists, international symobols of American power are what matter, since in reality thier conflict is about what is going on back home. Blowing up a Wal-Mart would cause immense paranoia in the US, but would have little resonance internationally, and most importantly, back home to the audience the terrorists want to reach.

now, blowing up the Federal Reserve Bank (which is in the Financial district in NYC) would be a big hit back home.

[SlowwHand]

The reason thought these attacks atren't going to happen are several:

1. These sorts of targest are in areas were outsiders stand out like martians. It would be difficult for a terrorist to have enough time out of the limelight to carry out the attack.

True, but so funny.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by SlowwHand


What?

Mr. Fun is attempting to be funny, with standard results.

[Ninot]

Canada